Pope's meeting with Kim Davis not an endorsement, Vatican says

  • Thread starter Thread starter EmperorNapoleon
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
_Abyssinia said:
Why is Kim Davis’ private life relevant to the issue at hand? Whether she was brought up Catholic, or wasn’t a practising Christian for years perhaps, or the fact that she converted to the Apostolic Church presumably, four years ago, what has that got to do with anything in relation to the issuing of sane-sex marriage licenses? If she has commited sin, that is something she should address in her own life, but that is her private life, what relevance does her private life have to do with the issuing with sake sex marriage licenses? Some call her a hypocrite but that doesn’t address whether she has a right, legally under the U.S. federal RFRA or state RFRA and morally, to not have to partake in the issuing of same-sex marriage licenses, and the same goes for other clerks.
Click to expand...
I view your typos (sane-sex and sake-sex, instead of same-sex) as Freudian slips, not without unconscious motivation! LOL

I agree with you that to harp on her past is irrelevant to the present issue. We have all done things we regret in our past. My one question concerning Kim Davis’ present is why is she apparently so concerned with the Pope’s validation of her behavior as a county clerk when she has left her Catholic roots (both parents are Catholics) and is now an Apostolic Pentecostal? True, she may admire the Pope, but, theologically speaking, in what sense does he provide her with a sense of validation?
 
sallybutler said:
Because the article being discussed is about her and her ‘visit’ with the Pope. Is she trustworthy witness.
Click to expand...
I am glad Mary Magdalene just had the disciples to convince, not CAF liberal Catholics! I doubt we’d have a Church - just another stoned adulteress and the Pharisees.
 
meltzerboy said:
I agree with you that to harp on her past is irrelevant to the present issue.
Click to expand...
It’s still kind of ironic that conservatives who claim to be defending the sanctity of marriage would find their champion in someone who was divorced three times.
 
meltzerboy said:
I view your typos (sane-sex and sake-sex, instead of same-sex) as Freudian slips, not without unconscious motivation! LOL

I agree with you that to harp on her past is irrelevant to the present issue. We have all done things we regret in our past. My one question concerning Kim Davis’ present is why is she apparently so concerned with the Pope’s validation of her behavior as a county clerk when she has left her Catholic roots (both parents are Catholics) and is now an Apostolic Pentecostal? True, she may admire the Pope, but, theologically speaking, in what sense does he provide her with a sense of validation?
Click to expand...
Perhaps it goes back to the idea of give me a child before they are seven and they are mine for life. If she was raised Catholic, she is still Catholic, whether she practices it now or not. Both my kids, who say they don’t believe in God, still respect the Church and honor the Pope. One is quite a little upset because she couldn’t be a god parent since she hadn’t been confirmed. Rather amazing, all things considered.
 
meltzerboy said:
The Pharisees were not all so bad. (However, I get your point.)
Click to expand...
Point taken. In fact I have been called one many a time myself, probably as many times as a sinner. I have argued on more than one occasion for sympathy towards them - so I guess I should do that now, huh? 😉 How does it go - love covers a multitude of sins? Here goes…
 
_Abyssinia said:
Some call her a hypocrite but that doesn’t address whether she has a right, legally under the U.S. federal RFRA or state RFRA and morally, to not have to partake in the issuing of same-sex marriage licenses, and the same goes for other clerks.
Click to expand...
Same-sex marriages are legal in the U.S. and Kentucky. Kim Davis is an employee of the state of Kentucky, and her official duties include the issuing of marriage licenses. What she does not have a legal right to do is defy the law and refuse to perform her official duties. She should resign.
 
Brendan_64 said:
PRmerger, as Catholics we are required to assent to all Church teachings. This does not just mean that our external behaviour adheres to the rules, but that we accept the teaching internally. If we struggle with a teaching then we must strive to accept that teaching. We cannot simply say “I don’t agree with that teaching, but so long as I don’t physically act in opposition to that teaching then I am doing no wrong by internally rejecting that teaching”. That represents obstinate denial of Church teaching.
Click to expand...
Very Catholic, this! 👍
 
sallybutler said:
Do you really think the Pope personally vets every person at a meet and greet? That he has nothing better to do with his time?
Click to expand...
I don’t think he does, but I’m pretty sure that the security people do.

I doubt that anyone gets through–no random clerk, no arbitrary gay couples, no family with kids–unless they have been vetted by someone with the authority to do this.
 
meltzerboy said:
Yes, life is full of irony.
Click to expand...
Also, based on the way that Kim Davis and her attorney described her meeting with the Pope and the way the Vatican described the meeting, it seems that Kim Davis has a tendency to stretch the truth (unless we assume that it is the Vatican that is doing the stretching). :rolleyes:
 
_Abyssinia said:
Why is Kim Davis’ private life relevant to the issue at hand? Whether she was brought up Catholic, or wasn’t a practising Christian for years perhaps, or the fact that she converted to the Apostolic Church presumably, four years ago, what has that got to do with anything in relation to the issuing of sane-sex marriage licenses? If she has commited sin, that is something she should address in her own life, but that is her private life, what relevance does her private life have to do with the issuing with sake sex marriage licenses? Some call her a hypocrite but that doesn’t address whether she has a right, legally under the U.S. federal RFRA or state RFRA and morally, to not have to partake in the issuing of same-sex marriage licenses, and the same goes for other clerks.
Click to expand...
Indeed. And that is why it is so very ungracious to mention it.

It’s so judgy.

And most of the folks who post such things about her past seem to be the crowd that vehemently condemns judging.

I, of course, like Christ, believe that we are called to judge.

But judge using right judgement.
 
PRmerger said:
I don’t think he does, but I’m pretty sure that the security people do.

I doubt that anyone gets through–no random clerk, no arbitrary gay couples, no family with kids–unless they have been vetted by someone with the authority to do this.
Click to expand...
Well, he met with President Obama. Are you saying you think he supports all President Obama’s policies since he met with him?

P.S. I don’t think they vet everyone at the level of an FBI background check… If the local Bishop says okay, they meet. I suspect Mrs. Pelosi has met the Pope also.
 
Thomas_White said:
What she does not have a legal right to do is defy the law and refuse to perform her official duties. She should resign.
Click to expand...
Do you think that there have ever been laws that government officials ought not have followed?

If so, should they have resigned, or stood up and protested the injustice of the law?
 
sallybutler said:
Well, he met with President Obama. Are you saying you think he supports all President Obama’s policies since he met with him?
Click to expand...
Ummm…nope.

Not sure what prompted that question, but it’s the biggest nonsequitur I’ve seen in a long time.
 
Well, that didn’t take long. They did not hesitate about offering the clarification.
 
PRmerger said:
Do you think that there have ever been laws that government officials ought not have followed?

If so, should they have resigned, or stood up and protested the injustice of the law?
Click to expand...
Yes. If protesting wasn’t enough, they should resign.

That is what being an honorable person is all about. That is saintly behavior. That is what true believers and martyers do.
 
sallybutler said:
Yes. If protesting wasn’t enough, they should resign.

That is what being an honorable person is all about. That is saintly behavior. That is what true believers and martyers do.
Click to expand...
But they should protest the law, yes?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top